I got into a discussion last night about who was the better quarterback, Jason Campbell and Eli Manning. It was argued that Campbell had better stats in 2008 than Manning, and hence, was the better QB. Not being aware of the stats at the time and not being interested in firing up the Blackberry, I waited until this morning to pull up the stats. If you just look at QB rating, there were about the same last year (86.4 - Manning, 84.3 Campbell). Both had a similar completion % (Manning - 60%, Campbell - 62%) and threw for approximately the same yardage. The biggest difference that I can see was Manning's 21 TD passes to Campbell's 13 TD passes. That being said, Manning threw 10 INT's while Campbell threw 6. I could go on with the stats forever, but it leads me to question, why was Eli just made the $15+ million a year man while the Redskins actively tried to replace Campbell this past offseason?
If I was asked point blank, who would I choose between Campbell or Manning to start a team with, right off the bat I would go with Manning, but after looking at the stats, I am not entirely sure that would be the case. I guess my gut feeling would be based on Manning's SB ring and what I have seen on the field (being an Eagles fan, I get to see both at least once a year). I am probably bias regarding evaluating a QB in person because I am taking into consideration how good the team is overall. Over the past couple of years, the Giants have been perennial contenders in the NFC East, while the Redskins have not enjoyed the same success. Is it then fair to judge the QB based on the success (or failure) of an entire team?At the end of the day, its just food for thought. I am not sure what exactly the answer is, if there is any. All I do know, is that I get six points for TD in fantasy and -2 for interceptions, so Eli would clearly have been the better choice last year.